Elliott C. Back: In Aere Aedificare

According to the FCC, the term “broadband” now means 768Kbps, up from the previous definition of 200Kbps. Under the new definition, “basic broadband” defines download speeds between 768Kbps and 1.5Mbps. Other changes in how subscribers are reported includes a breakdown of upload and download speed and additional gradations of speed. News dot COM notes that “ISPs will not have to report the prices they charge, yet.”

For comparison’s sake, an average movie download is 700 MB (5872025600 bits), and would take 8.16 hours to download under the old broadband definition at 200Kbps. However, at the new faster rate of 768Kbps, an American with basic broadband will be able to download a movie in just 2.12 hours.

Broadband reporting is a problem for America, because up till now we could only point to useless studies indicating that 12.5% of internet users are still on 56.6k or worse speeds. Once politicians and the industry realizes how bad broadband penetration in the US really is, we’ll see better internet service and connectivity.

If you’re an American, or otherwise living in the USA, stories like That Money Is GUILTY! should make you extremely angry:

Deputy Chris Engel, 25, had been on the job just two weeks when a routine traffic stop Dec. 20 turned into the biggest cash seizure the Nebraska county has ever seen. The driver’s story didn’t add up, Engel said, so he did a little more investigating. The driver was not arrested — or even ticketed for going 10 mph over the 75 mph speed limit. (He was warned.) But the investigation is ongoing, Engel said. The Nebraska State Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Agency are assisting in the investigation.

“Chris is a very aggressive young deputy,” Hanson said. Investigators don’t know if they will be able to connect the money to a drug operation, Hanson said, but the important work already has been done. “The big thing is he grabbed 69 (thousand dollars) and took it away from them,” Hanson said of the money seized. “That’s going right straight to the heart of the matter.”

Thanks to America’s asset forfeiture laws, Police can and will take your property from you if they want to, or suspect they can. Usually this occurs when carrying large amounts of cash under the assumption that anyone carrying a large amount of cash must be guilty of a crime. The legal proceedings are dubious, as the Federal government brings a civil case against your seized cash:

The US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a “preponderance of the evidence” that it is not.

On a practical level, the law enforcement agents making the seizures are either (a) funding their departments or (b) acquiring equity that will personally benefit them, a clear conflict of interest between revenue generating activities and lawfulness. This came from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), passed by Congress in 1970, which sought to reduce crime by eliminating its financial motivations. For example, in the case of a drug dealer, RICO would let police take his pimped out car, stacks of cash, and other such business accessories, making it unprofitable and embarrassing to be in that profession.

The Mesa Tribune did an analysis of the RICO cases filed in Arizona between January 1990 to November 1993. The nine local agencies it analyzed were the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the D.P.S. (Department of Public Safety), the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, and the Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe police departments:

• Nearly three-fourths of the people who lose property in forfeiture cases are never charged with a crime.
• About two-thirds of the people who had property seized had no criminal records in Maricopa County.
• One of every six people whose property was seized was an uninvolved third party who was not even present when the property was taken. Typically these were parents, siblings, boyfriends, or girlfriends who entrusted their cars or other property to someone who was arrested on a narcotics-related charge.
• More than $4 million in cash - 54.8% of that taken - was seized from people who were never charged with a crime.
• Of the more than 2,400 people whose property was seized, only one in five was ultimately convicted.
• Only one in 20 went to prison.
• One in 40 went to prison for five years or more, even though those are the people most likely to be the kingpins at which the law is aimed.
• Despite the law’s stated aim of breaking wealthy crime organizations, the average cash seizure is $3,063.
• According to the Mesa Tribune study, the nine agencies raised $26.5 million in that time period. Typically, forfeiture profits are divided among the agencies that contributed to the case.

Once your equity has been taken from you, it’s your own responsibility to sue to get it back. Probably, you won’t even be charged with a crime, just presumed to be guilty of criminal activity before being proved so. To show “innocent ownership” in court, according to Practical Freedom, you must demonstrate all of the following:

1. The person acquired an interest in the property before or during the criminal act.
2. The property was acquired legally.
3. The owner did not or could not have known of the illegal activity.
4. The owner was not married to the person committing the illegal act.

When is someone going to sue the government and get this turned around? Asset forfeiture makes sense when it is applied after the judgment of guilt, not before, and inside the usual limitation and restrictions of law.

According to a GigaOm article Google Trends Predicts Hillary as Dem Nominee, “current Google trend lines show Clinton beating Obama and Edwards.” Unfortunately they neglect to compare any possible Republican nominees, or any other candidates for nomination, such as our infamous Ron Paul, who easily pwns Hillary’s search volume by orders of magnitude:

Can Ron Paul steal the Republican nomination? According to his Google trends graph, he can! Maybe democracy is coming…

Live from the Honolulu International Airport, I bring you the following conversation I shared with the Transport Security Administration about the photography of their checkpoint.

Me: Is there any specific written tsa regulation prohibiting photography?

TSA Captain: Yes there is. Phography is not allowed.

Me: Can I see this in writing?

TSA Captain: I can’t let you see that.

Me: Then how do I know it exists?

TSA Captain: I just told you.

Obviously there is a problem here; I don’t mind not being able to take photos (national security, yada yada) but TSA as a government agency has to at least inform the public of its regulations. How can anyone be held responsible for violating a regulation they could not possibly know exists.

I’ve got taxes to do, and I’m not exactly sure what the difference is between H&R’s Taxcut and Intuit’s Turbotax. As far as I can tell, they’re both roughly the same price, and allow you to electronically turn in your 2006 federal and state income taxes:

The confusion becomes worse when you realize that there are a number of “free filing” sites, as well:

• Tax ACT: Your totally FREE tax software
• eSmart Tax: Online tax filing software

All of this is confused by the large numbers of SEO spammers cluttering up search results in Google. I’ve done taxes before, but tax software should exist to make my life easier, not more difficult. Buying tax software should be like buying an operating system. Clearly, buying Vista is a bad idea. Buying Taxcut? We can’t be so sure.